Litnet

Ongelowiges maak baie gewag van die onbekende outeurskap van die belangrike boeke in die Woord. 

Chris Dippenaar, byvoorbeeld, maak onlangs in 'n kommentaar die opmerking dat die skrywer van Lukas kwansuis erken word as 'n anonieme werk deur die oorgrote meerderheid van 'kundiges'.  Natuurlik kan hy hierdie stelling nie bewys of gestand doen nie, en die 'kundiges' waarvan hy praat, is nie kundiges nie, maar agnostici met 'n vooropgestelde agenda om die Woord te diskrediteer vir die ooglopende rede dat, as hulle dit nie doen nie, dan moet hulle dit aanvaar as korrek en waar en dit sal hulle agnostiese beskouing geheel en al verongeluk – dit is hulle nie bereid om te doen nie. Diesulkes is beslis ook nie in die meerderheid nie.

Die werklike oorgrote meerderheid en gesaghebbende outoriteite is mense wat hulle lewe lank besig hou met die Woord en uit hulle pen het talle studiebybels en soortgelyk al die lig gesien.

Kom ons haal, byvoorbeeld, die uiters gesaghebbende en bekende studiebybel, die King James Version Study Bible aan, oor die outeurskap van die evangelie van Lukas:

“Ancient testimony is unanimous that Luke (“the beloved physician,” Col. 4:14) penned the third Gospel. Modern scholarship has rightly drawn attention to Luke as the companion volume to Acts; the two works were certainly written by the same author. Together they make up over half of the New Testament, so by sheer volume of output alone Luke takes on special significance.

"Some modern interpreters discount Luke’s authorship, but they fall short of proposing a convincing alternative to the ancient witnesses. These scholars feel that Luke’s outlook is so different from Paul’s that no companion of Paul ... could have written Luke-Acts. Such arguments are by no means convincing. The reader of the New Testament is not compelled to choose between Luke and Paul. Differences in outlook may as easily count in favor of Luke’s authorship as against. While Luke was not himself an eyewitness of the gospel events, he had access to writings about, and eyewitnesses to, them. He had sifted sources carefully. Many feel that he must have made use of Mark’s gospel. Some have accordingly stressed his contribution as a historian, a discoverer and preserver of facts. Others see in him primarily a theologian, an expositor of the meaning of facts. He is really both. He presents both the meaning of the gospel saga and its factual ground. He produces what is, by the reckoning of many, the gospel most attractive in style and poignant in message that we possess. 

"Luke implies that he wrote his gospel prior to writing Acts (Acts 1:1). Acts ends with Paul in prison, about A.D. 62. A number of scholars of various persuasions thus agree on a date near A.D. 60–62 for the writing of Luke. Those who date it much later (c. A.D. 80–90, or even in the second century) do so for reasons that fail to overturn the likelihood of an earlier date.”

Die welbekende en gesaghebbende moderne Spirit Filled Life Study Bible se outeurs stem hiermee saam en sê kortliks die volgende:

“Both style and language offer convincing evidence that the same person wrote Luke and Acts. “The former account” of Acts 1:1 then is likely a reference to the third Gospel as the first of a two-volume series, and the fact that the writer dedicates both books to Theophilus also strongly argues for common authorship. Since church tradition unanimously attributes these two works to Luke the physician, a close associate of Paul (Col. 4:14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11), and since the internal evidence supports this view, there is no reason to dispute the Lukan authorship.”

Die moderne en gesaghebbende Believer's Study Bible se outeurs is dit ook eens, dat Lukas sy eie Evangelie gepen het. Hulle sê:

“The book is anonymous, though the uniform belief of ancient writers is that the author is Luke, the physician whom Paul mentions as his companion and colleague. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome all support Lucan authorship. The second-century Muratorian Canon, which lists the books that are received as Scripture in Rome, declares Luke the physician to be the author of both the third Gospel and Acts. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue, an introduction to Luke found in a number of Latin manuscripts, ascribes the book to the physician and companion of Paul and supplies this additional information, which is open to question: he was a native of Antioch, he wrote his Gospel in Achaia, and he died unmarried and childless in Boeotia at the age of eighty-four.

"From his writings (Luke and Acts) the author appears to be a second-generation Christian who is closely associated with eyewitnesses of the beginning of Christianity. From the “we” passages in Acts, it appears that he is a missionary associate of Paul’s. His education is considerable; he writes excellent Greek, both classical and biblical, and demonstrates a literary ability that approaches a poetic quality at times. The question of whether Luke was a Jew or a Gentile must remain open. Traditionally he has been viewed as a Gentile, though it is never so stated in Scripture. One of the major reasons for this is that Luke writes a form of Greek superior to that of most of the New Testament. However, his Greek shows Semitic influence as well (e.g., in 1:5–2:52). He takes a great interest in the city of Jerusalem and the temple, with more references to each than any other gospel writer. In some ways Luke’s Gospel is more Jewish than Matthew’s, though this fact alone does not prove he was Jewish.

"Biblical evidence points to A.D. 58–63 as the likely time of writing. Luke was written earlier than Acts, its companion volume. The last chapter of Acts recounts events that are c. A.D. 63, and probably concludes as it does because events are contemporary. Perhaps Luke began his first volume at Caesarea and finished it in Rome, having accompanied Paul the prisoner. A date of A.D. 59–61 is most probable.”

Die bekende Afrikaanse studiebybel, Die Bybel Verklaar, se outeurs stem ook saam en sê die volgende:

“By die kerkvaders Irenaeus (sterfjaar 202), Klemens van Aleksandrië, Origenes en Tertullianus was daar egter geen twyfel nie. Volgens hulle was dit Lukas, die geneesheer en metgesel van Paulus, wat die Evangelie geskryf het. In Filemon vers 24 noem Paulus hom sy medewerker en in Kolossense 4:14 “die dokter wat ek baie lief het”. Uit Lukas se woordgebruik in die Evangelie kan ons ook aflei dat hy waarskynlik ’n geneesheer was. Vergelyk ons nou Lukas 1:1–4 met Handelinge 1:1, kom ons tot die gevolgtrekking dat Handelinge die tweede boek van dieselfde skrywer moet wees. Die taal en styl van die twee boeke is ook van dieselfde skrywer. In Handelinge vind ons gedeeltes waarin die skrywer die eerste persoon meervoud “ons” gebruik, om daarmee aan te dui dat hy ten tyde van die betrokke gebeure saam met Paulus was. As ons nou die medewerkers van Paulus uitskakel wat nie by al die gebeure wat in hierdie gedeeltes beskrywe word teenwoordig kon wees nie, bly net Lukas oor wat die  “ons” gebruik om hom op beskeie wyse as skrywer aan te dui. As hy die skrywer van Handelinge was, was hy dit ook van Lukas.”

Daar is nog talle meer sulke bronne van welbekende en gerekende outoriteite van die studie van die Woord en die boekstawing daarvan. Net hierdie vier bronne alleen, verteenwoordig gesamentlik heelwat meer as 'n honderd verskillende internasionaal gerekende outeurs en kundiges wat hulself met die inhoud van hierdie werke vereenselwig.

Trouens, in Lukas 1:2 maak Lukas dit duidelik dat hy steun op ooggetuie-verklarings. Hoe desperaat  is die agnostici nie om hierdie belangrike aspek te probeer weerlê nie.

Vreemd dat die agnostici nog steeds desperaat en verbete probeer om dit te weerspreek. Chris Dippenaar se onverskillige en wilde bewerings maak net seker dat hulle as groep uitgeken word vir die irrelevante en desperate individue wat van hulle spirituele agnostici maak en presies hoe onbetroubaar hulle wilde stellings is.

Kobus de Klerk